“In a case that drew attention from the Gun Owners Action League and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence,” boston.com reported back in March. “the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday upheld a state law requiring trigger locks on guns kept in people’s homes.” Judging from this YouTuber’s accent, he’s a Massachusetts resident (whose finger loves that trigger long time). If so, he’s subject to the pre-McDonald ruling. Which is the most ridiculous gun control law in the entire United States. Think of it this way . . .
What is the point of a home defense gun? I’m thinking . . . home defense. What use is a gun if it has a trigger lock? None. How likely is it that a home owner could remove a trigger lock in an emergency situation? About as likely as Mayor Daley showing up an open carry demonstration with a Glock .45 strapped to his hip.
So what IS the point?
To prevent a negligent discharge leading to the death of . . . a child. This despite the fact that such accidents are so rare that they’re statistically insignificant. And that it’s the gun owner’s responsibility to educate their children and store their guns safely, rather than the gun’s responsibility not to be able to be fired by a child.
Ah, but I said “safely.” What could be safer than a gun with a child lock—sorry, “trigger lock”? A gun with a trigger lock with no key? A gun with a keyless trigger lock and no bullets? A gun with a keyless trigger lock and no bullets and an internal lock (a la Smith & Wesson revolvers)? A gun with a keyless trigger lock and no bullets and an internal lock (a la Smith & Wesson revolvers) with no key?
It’s entirely possible to render a firearm completely inert and, thus, safe for children. Or is it? There’s still a chance that a child could find both keys and some bullets, unlock the gun, insert the bullets and pull the trigger.
If one child is saved, it’s worth it, yes? But what if a child dies because of a trigger lock? A homeowner can’t repel a home invasion because his gun is inoperable. The home invaders shoot the child.
Statistically irrelevant? Again, so are fatal negligent discharges (a.k.a. firearms accidents); although God knows the tragedies get HUGE media attention whenever they occur.
I can see one advantage to a trigger lock: if you have multiple guns and no gun safe. But then if you think a trigger lock makes your gun safe, you’re more likely to leave it somewhere a child can find it.
The conundrum is this: why allow a right and then restrict it to the point where you’ve made the practical exercise of that right impossible? Unless, of course, that’s exactly what you’re trying to do.